hazard14 |
11 months agoIt's all in the title...
I don't see any advantage for anyone in this new move....
Whoever trains this type of player is going to train for 6 7 seasons in order to benefit from it for 6 7 seasons?
There's frankly no point.
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Rull43 |
10 months agoClearly, you're running a youngster in the cdf, you're waiting well and you've got a 24-30 m. curve...
It's scary.
A little backtracking would be appreciated.
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
hazard14 |
10 months agoFor me personally, it's one of the worst improvements ever made....
I'm the first to come out with a 30-year regression, and unfortunately I sell it straight away...
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Rull43 |
10 months agoYeah, I've just taken my youngster out of the cdf.
Jackpot, I won a nice 24-30, which doesn't even make you want to train that.
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Zeus |
10 months agoYou can train it bg, you've still got 6 seasons to enjoy it ^^
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Deck |
10 months agoAfter 7 seasons of training, how profitable...
It's like when I prepare a dish for 3 hours and then I cook it in 10 minutes... I'm not joking, I don't cook!
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
3 more replies
Zeus |
10 months agoIf you release him at 23, you won't have 7 seasons to train him!
You need to think mac fly 🤣🤣
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Rull43 |
10 months agoHow do you know I'm a bg? 🤔
Not there 24 years! I took it out when I was 19. It's up for auction, knock yourself out
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
k3vin59218 |
10 months agohazard14 |
9 months agoEvery cdf release from a young regre 30ans I feel like I have a +1 here 🤣🤣
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Zeus |
9 months agoIt seems that the 30-year curves have been removed
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
hazard14 |
9 months agomyforsans |
9 months agoIn any case, the regressions don't really mean anything any more because the players who are supposedly falling are hardly falling at all.
Most players aged 34, 35 or 36 who are at 99 will remain so until they die, as they lose a point here or there, but that's hardly more than 2 or 3 pts a season, and given their lead over players 10 years younger, their owners have nothing to worry about! Unless certain parameters change again, the age of regression has now become a false problem.
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Demi-cerveau |
9 months agoI'm curious to see concrete examples of regressing players who only lose 2 or 3 skill points in a season. In my opinion, it's a bit more ...
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
myforsans |
9 months agoFor example, at the beginning of the season my goalkeeper was at 99 - 33 - 33 - 33
now he's at 98 - 33 - 33 - 33
after 44 days
Deleted player
Since the start of the season he's lost one goalkeeping point and gained 2 stamina points, one with the physical preparation course and one with training and XP.
image](https://i.imgur.com/pH0RZiA.jpeg)
So frankly, I'm not complaining.
And it's the vast majority of regressing players who suffer these derisory losses.
What's perhaps unfair or strange is that these regressions seem to me to be very, very random (except for one constant: it generally affects the highest characteristic).
What's more, a lot of monstrous players have a lot of margin (not my keeper). For example, if a CSA starts regressing at 86-43-43-43, you can be sure that he'll remain NG 99 until he dies.
For example, you currently have 65 players aged 33 to 99 and over, some of them with a lot of margin.
#search?joueur=1&nom&nation&age_min=33&age_max=33&rating_min&rating_max&prog_potential_min&prog_potential_max&poste&cote&transfert_liste&transfert_enchere&uidin=0&niv_gardien_min&niv_gardien_max&niv_defense_min&niv_defense_max&niv_tacle_min&niv_tacle_max&niv_placement_min&niv_placement_max&niv_marquage_min&niv_marquage_max&niv_puissance_min&niv_puissance_max&niv_passe_min&niv_passe_max&niv_technique_min&niv_technique_max&niv_vitesse_min&niv_vitesse_max&niv_attaque_min&niv_attaque_max&niv_endurance_min&niv_endurance_max&order=5
and you have 128 who are 98 and over
What's more, when you lose a regression point, it sometimes affects your stamina, so your rating stays intact.
So yes, I maintain that the age at which regression starts has only a slight impact, but that's only on the basis of the current settings, which are not at all what they were a few seasons ago, when regression was plummeting.
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Lahi |
9 months agoAnother example: Deleted player
Almost the end of the season and still no points lost...
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Rull43 |
9 months agoThank you for giving us the idea of modifying and hardening the regressions 🫠
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
myforsans |
9 months agoI'm not giving anyone any ideas ;) ;) ;) it's just an observation of something that distorts the game even more with monstrous players who have benefited from poor training settings (not to mention the use of loopholes by some clubs like short term loans which has increased their monstrosity even more).
What's the point of having NG99 players if everyone has more or less the same ones? The aim isn't to have the best team in absolute terms, but the best compared to the competition!
And these players, who shouldn't (and shouldn't) exist any more, are still in the game for several seasons with their lack of regression, instead of getting out of the way.
A lot of clubs are still taking advantage of these 'veterans' (myself included) but that's not what makes the game more attractive, far from it, and it creates very serious imbalances with clubs that are trying to play for the long term.
But to come back to the subject, yes, I can confirm that regression to 30, 31 or 32 years of age is completely irrelevant as the game is set up. The only thing that matters is the final retirement age and that doesn't necessarily correlate with the pseudo-regression age, which has become fictitious.
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
hazard14 |
9 months agoDeleted player
Personally, I feel the regression is well and truly over....
It was a basic 99ng...
All my ng99 players went to 97 or 96 in one season...
But it's true that I've already seen some ng99s almost not drop during the 1st year of regression
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
myforsans |
9 months agoEven now, he's not losing much
0 points lost and a point gained in 3 weeks!
#joueur?jid=485299&progression
There was a time when all regressing players systematically lost one or two points a week. That's no longer the case and there are NG 99 players who have huge mattresses above 99 that they'll keep until the day they die.
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
hazard14 |
9 months agoHe's still lost 17ng in 3 and a half seasons, which isn't bad lol.
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Socrate |
9 months agoWe're actually talking more about 3-4 NGs per season lost than 3-4 points.
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Brutus |
9 months agoBased on a high range (depending on the player, because it's + or -) of 1pt / week of training, that gives us around -8.
With training and matches (28 +or-), he could take 2pts / season. That gives us -6pts, so -3 NG.
I agree with my VDD and CQFD (in theory of course), a big thought for those who have players who take -2pts / week!
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Sun's |
9 months agoThe regression is the same even if the player in question is able to play every day compared to someone else who plays every other day?
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Brutus |
9 months agoRegression is random (amha)... I've seen players lose 2pts/week, others 1 or even 1/2 weeks (then you have to look at the points gained in training because that 'cancels out' the lost pt).
After that, with the daily training sessions and the Xp of the matches, yes, you can take 2 pts / season... you just need to be lucky that you win the pts in those you lose randomly each week!
Anyway, I agree with Socrate, theoretically you lose 3 pts of NG each season (on average).
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Kevin-7130 |
9 months agoAnd so you're going to complain that players don't regress faster is that it? 🤣
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
myforsans |
9 months agoHonestly, it's high time that players with NG 99 and 50 stamina cleared the floor, as their monstrosity is the result of poor game settings over several seasons, along with the use of loopholes such as short-term loans with training storage, which several clubs had made a speciality of... There's no need to name them, they'll know who they are.
And the current set-up of the regressions will only perpetuate these players. At this rate, it will only be in 3 or 4 seasons that the game will return to normality.
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Kevin-7130 |
9 months agoShouldn't it be the new type of training that should be revised upwards, rather than the other way round? :)
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Demi-cerveau |
9 months agoThe fact that these are 2 players who have a maturity span that ends at 33, and who are therefore only starting to regress this season (and I don't think from the start of the season in this case) somewhat truncates the two examples given, doesn't it?
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
myforsans |
9 months agoNot at all. What's the point of having 11 players at NG 99 if your opponent has more or less the same?
The aim isn't to have a huge team in absolute terms, but to have a better team than your opponent.
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
spoupou |
9 months agoWell, in 3-4 seasons, all the managers will have a squad of 90 players, so it's exactly the same at the end of the season, whether it's 99 players, 90 players or 80 players, the squads will be more or less identical.
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Deck |
9 months agoThanks a lot! I don't understand this 99NG problem (especially as those who point it out are often well off) as long as it's the same for everyone...
If when everyone manages to do 99ng 50endu, some have done 85ng 7endu. So when the maximum is 90ng 10endu, these same people will make 70ng 2endu. And the problem will then be the 90ng..etc....
The only problem is the overlap between the boosted generations and the new, less efficient ones, but that's the way it's always been on VF, you can have 4 or 5 seasons of training with the best of the best and when you finish your training, the cursor is moved and your generation becomes obsolete.
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
OMstar83 |
9 months agoYes, but it's hard to understand. In short, endless exchanges about something that can't be solved. As Demi says, we'll be at the same point on the 90 of NG in 10 seasons.
This message has been translated. (FR) Original message
Starryx |
9 months agoMy player Lost point every week so it is still the same
From 99 to 96 now
#joueur?jid=500345&progression